GOP In 2011: Anything But Jobs

December 20, 2011 9:31 am ET

Throughout the 2010 campaign cycle, Republicans capitalized on the struggling economy to bolster their case for election, promising to focus all their political efforts on job creation. Yet when the GOP assumed the majority in the House of Representatives, it quickly became clear that their "top political priority" — as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) admitted — was to "deny President Obama a second term." As such, the GOP, particularly in the House, has spent its legislative time on anything and everything but legislation to help the struggling economy get back on its feet or to spur job creation. Instead, they've introduced bill after bill on hot-button issues, particularly women's reproductive health; they've dragged the economy to the brink of disaster by playing political games with the debt ceiling; they've done their best to undermine the social safety net by proposing cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps; and they've tried over and over to repeal or deny funding to the landmark Affordable Care Act. Even worse, a number of the measures they've proposed would actually destroy jobs.

GOP's 2010 Message: Creating Jobs "Has To Be
The First Priority"

2010: GOP Focused On Jobs In Creating "Contract With America" Campaign Document. From The Hill:

House
Republicans intend to make the economy and jobs a major part of the new
Contract With America they hope to unveil in September.

Republicans
argue jobs will be a winning issue for them this fall, partly because they opposed a stimulus package that has
enlarged the government and budget deficit while doing too little to stop a
skyrocketing unemployment rate that now stands at 9.5 percent.

Rep. Peter
Roskam (R-Ill.) has been charged with putting together the section on jobs,
which Republicans see as a unifying policy position for a conference that
unanimously rejected President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus package
last year.

Roskam
said he'll be meeting with small-business owners and other job creators rather
than economists to develop the economic plank of a new conference platform.

"There's
a sense of clarity that jobs are something that we need to focus on, and
who better to talk to than employers and small business[es] and job
creators?" [The Hill, 7/7/10, emphasis
added]

September 30, 2010: Rep. Mike Pence:
Creating Jobs "Has To Be The First Priority And I Believe Will Be The
First Priority If Republicans Are Given Another Opportunity To Lead." According to O. Kay Henderson, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said: "I
also believe that it will be imperative that the new congress focus just as
much energy on getting our economy moving again, making sure that in the city
and on the farm, Americans have more of their own hard-earned
resources to invest in ways that will create jobs, so putting our fiscal house
in order, creating policies that will open the doors of opportunity to
families during this difficult economy and create jobs has to be the first
priority and I believe will be the first priority if Republicans are
given another opportunity to lead." [OKHenderson.com, 9/30/10, emphasis
added]

November 30, 2010: Majority Leader Eric
Cantor: "They Want To See Us Focus On Jobs." From Politico: "'Tonight's election is about
listening to the people and that was the message that's being sent across this
land is they don't like this health care bill, and they want to see us focus
on jobs, and there's just been no results that match the expectations of
the people,' Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who is poised to become House
Majority Leader, told CBS News late Tuesday." [Politico, 11/3/10, emphasis
added]

2011: Dismantling The Affordable
Care Act

January 5: House Republicans Introduce "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." From the Palm
Beach Post:

With the swearing-in of the 112th Congress Wednesday, a new
wrestling match over health reform starts, one that could be uglier than the
first.

On Tuesday, House Republicans rang the bell on their repeal
attempt with the red meat titled, "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care
Law Act." The bill will come up procedurally on Friday and could be voted
on next Wednesday. It's not expected to pass, with a Democratic White House and
Senate. But it's only the first round. [Palm
Beach Post, 1/5/11]

January 19: House Voted In Favor Of "Largely
Symbolic" Repeal Bill.
From NPR: "The new Republican-controlled
House voted Wednesday 245-189 to repeal the historic health care overhaul
legislation signed last March by President Obama, but the measure appears
destined to prove largely symbolic." [NPR, 1/19/11]

February 18: The House Voted To Add
Four Amendments That Would Defund The Affordable Care Act To Continuing
Resolution. From ThinkProgress:

Moments ago, the House of
Representatives passed four different amendments to the continuing resolution
that would deny funding to the Affordable Care Act or the employees who are
currently implementing the law, jeopardizing the law's consumer protections and
potentially leading to the loss of some 500 federal jobs. Below are the
relevant amendments:

- REHBERG #575 - prohibits funds in the bill
from being paid to any employee, officer, contractor, or grantee of
any department or agency funded by the Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies portion of the bill to implement the provisions
of ObamaCare. Passed: 239-187

- KING (IA) #267 - prohibits the use of funds in the bill from being used to carry out the provisions of
ObamaCare. Passed: 241-187

- KING (IA) #268 - prohibits the use of funds in the bill from being used
to pay the salary of any officer or employee of any
federal department or agency with respect to carrying out the provisions of
ObamaCare. Passed: 237-191

- EMERSON #83 - prohibits the use of funds in the bill from being used by the Internal Revenue Service to
implement the individual mandate and penalties and reporting requirements of
ObamaCare. Passed: 256-182 [ThinkProgress,
2/18/11]

April 5: GOP Proposed Budget That Would Repeal The
Affordable Care Act. From "The Path to
Prosperity":

The
country needs to move away from this centralized system, not towards it. This
budget starts by repealing the costly new government-run health care law,
saving roughly $725 billion over ten years by repealing the new exchange
subsidies and making sure that not a penny goes toward implementing the new law
[PPACA]. [The Path To Prosperity, 4/5/11]

April 14: House Passed A "Largely Symbolic" Resolution To Block Funding
For Health Care Law. According to The
Hill:

The House on Thursday
afternoon approved two resolutions that would amend the FY 2011 spending bill
to block funding designated for Planned Parenthood and last year's healthcare
law. But House passage is largely symbolic, as the Senate did not pass either
of the bills.

Votes in
both the House and the Senate were a condition that Republicans insisted on as
part of last week's agreement on funding for the rest of the fiscal year. [The Hill, 4/14/11]

September 29: House GOP Tried To Defund Affordable Care Act
Through Spending Bill. According
to The Hill:

House Republicans released a draft spending bill Thursday that would cut
off funding for many parts of the healthcare reform law, though the bill
remains deadlocked in the Appropriations Committee.

The draft
legislation would attempt to derail implementation of the
law. It would specifically block any money from going to the Center for
Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight - the office handling the bulk of
the implementation effort - as well as the recently disbanded office in charge
of setting up the controversial CLASS program. [The Hill, 9/29/11]

Congress took
a collective step backward in wrapping up a bitter year of legislating, as
President Barack Obama's top priority over the payroll
tax holiday
became mired in a battle over unrelated, partisan issues.

House
Republicans jammed through a version of the payroll tax bill Tuesday evening
that calls for construction of the controversial Keystone KL oil pipeline,
scales back an air-pollution rule, cuts Obama's health reform law and reduces the
length of unemployment benefits. It was largely a message vote - the GOP bill
is dead on arrival in the Democratic Senate and faced a veto threat anyway -
but it sets the stage again for a final, frenzied bout of deal making that has
defined this divided Congress. [Politico,
12/16/11]

2011: Undoing The Safety Net

Food Stamps

April 5: The GOP Budget Proposed To Put
Food Stamps Into A Block Grant Program. From "The Path To Prosperity":

Convert the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) into a block grant tailored for each state's low-income
population, indexed for inflation and eligibility beginning in 2015 - after
employment has recovered. Make aid contingent on work or job training.
["The Path To Prosperity", 4/5/11]

Block Grants Would Allow States To Deplete Food Aid
Funds When Faced With Budget Shortfalls. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
"States would likely be able to shift funds away from food assistance to
other purposes, which they would be tempted to do when they face large budget
shortfalls (as they do today)." [CBPP.org,4/5/11]

CBPP: Converting SNAP To A Block Grant "Would
Further Weaken A Slumping Economy And Lead To The Loss Of Many More Jobs."According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "The Ryan plan would convert both
Medicaid and SNAP to block grants, however, which means they would no longer
respond automatically to increased need during recessions. That would not only
increase hardship and destitution in recessions, but also would further weaken
a slumping economy and lead to the loss of many more jobs." [CBPP.org, 4/6/11]

Medicaid

April 5: The GOP Budget Proposed To Create A
Block Grant Program For Medicaid. From the "Path to
Prosperity":

Secure the Medicaid benefit by converting the federal
share of Medicaid spending into a block grant tailored to meet each state's
needs, indexed for inflation and population growth. This reform ends the
misguided one-size-fits-all approach that has tied the hands of so many state
governments. States will no longer be shackled by federally determined program
requirements and enrollment criteria. Instead, they will have the freedom and
flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program that fits the needs of their unique
populations. [The Path To Prosperity, 4/5/11]

CBO: Block Grants
Could Limit Medicaid Programs To The Point That "Providers Might Be Less
Willing To Treat Medicaid Enrollees." In its analysis of the
"Path To Prosperity," the Congressional Budget Office wrote: "If
states reduced spending for their Medicaid programs, there would be a number of
potential implications for both providers and beneficiaries. Given that payment
rates for providers under Medicaid are already generally lower than they are
under Medicare and private insurance, if states lowered payment rates even
further, providers might be less willing to treat Medicaid enrollees. As a
result, Medicaid enrollees could face more limited access to care."
[CBO, 4/5/11]

If States Have To
Reduce Medicaid Benefits Or Eligibility, Low-Income Patients Will Have To Pay
More Out Of Pocket And Providers Could Lose Money. In its analysis of
the "Path To Prosperity," the Congressional Budget Office wrote:
"If states reduced benefits or eligibility levels, beneficiaries could
face higher out-of-pocket costs, and providers could face more uncompensated
care as beneficiaries lost coverage for certain benefits or lost coverage
altogether." [CBO, 4/5/11]

Center for American Progress: Block Grant Funding Of Medicaid Would Cost 3 Million Jobs. From the Center for American Progress: "The conservative proposal to turn Medicaid into a block-grant program would not only be detrimental to the health of millions of Americans but also cost three million jobs-jeopardizing our economic recovery." [Center for American Progress, 2/28/11]

Children's Health Insurance

April 5: GOP Budget Sought To
Institute CHIP Cuts That Would "Jeopardiz[e] Health Coverage For Up To
One-Third Of Our Nation's Children." According
to the children's advocacy group First Focus:

The Ryan
budget imposes draconian cuts to both Medicaid and the Children's Health
Insurance Program (CHIP), jeopardizing health coverage for up to one-third of
our nation's children who rely on either Medicaid or CHIP for their health
care. Specifically, Chairman Ryan proposes to slash $771 billion out of current
Medicaid and another $627 billion out of Medicaid as part of health care reform
for a total of $1.4 trillion in federal Medicaid cuts. [...]

As a
result, Medicaid and CHIP would see a total combined loss in federal and state
funding of more than $2 trillion over the course of the next ten years - an
amount that clearly jeopardizes the health and well-being of the more than
30 million children in this country who rely on Medicaid or CHIP for their
health coverage. [FirstFocus.net, 4/7/11, emphasis
added]

Medicare

April 5: GOP Budget Proposed To Turn
Medicare Into A Voucher System.
From "The Path to Prosperity":

Save
Medicare for current and future generations while making no changes for those
in and near retirement. For younger workers, when they reach eligibility,
Medicare will provide a Medicare payment and a list of guaranteed coverage
options from which recipients can choose a plan that best suits their needs.
These future Medicare beneficiaries will be able to choose a plan the same way
members of Congress do. Medicare will provide additional assistance for
lower-income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks. [The Path To
Prosperity, 4/5/11]

CBO: Under
The Ryan Budget, "Most Elderly People Would Pay More For Their Health Care
Than They Would Pay Under The Current Medicare System." According to the Congressional Budget Office: "Under
the proposal, most elderly people would pay more for their health care than
they would pay under the current Medicare system. For a typical 65-year-old
with average health spending enrolled in a plan with benefits similar to those
currently provided by Medicare, CBO estimated the beneficiary's spending on
premiums and out-of-pocket expenditures as a share of a benchmark: what total
health care spending would be if a private insurer covered the beneficiary. By
2030, the beneficiary's spending would be 68 percent of that benchmark under
the proposal, 25 percent under the extended-baseline scenario, and 30 percent
under the alternative fiscal scenario." [CBO.gov, 4/5/11]

Click HERE to read much more about the GOP budget's impact on the social saftey net.

2011: Rolling Back Women's Reproductive
Health Rights

January 7: Rep.
Broun Bill Would Have Granted Legal And Constitutional Rights To Embryos. In January, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced the Sanctity
of Human Life Act, H.R. 212. According to Feminist Majority, the bill
"provides that human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its
functional equivalent, at which time every human has all legal and
constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood." [Feminist
Majority, accessed 10/3/11]

January 20: Rep.
Fleming Introduced Bill That Would Allow Health Care Organizations To Refuse To
Provide Abortion-Related Services Even When Required By Law. In February, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) introduced the
Abortion Non-Discrimination Act, which, according to Feminist Majority,
"would amend the Public Health Service Act to allow health care
organizations to refuse to provide abortion services or give information
regarding those services. It would permit health care institutions to ignore
public health laws that require them to provide pregnant women complete
information about all of their options, to treat abortion patients whose health
is at risk, or to cover abortions in cases of rape or incest." [Feminist
Majority, accessed 10/4/11]

January 20: Rep. Chris Smith
Introduced H.R. 3, The "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act." From RH Reality Check: "No one should be fooled by the No Taxpayer Funding for
Abortion Act, or H.R. 3, which was introduced today in the House of
Representatives. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), the main sponsor, claims that his
bill would "only" codify, or make permanent, the Hyde Amendment, which is the
annual appropriations rider that restricts Medicaid funding for abortion. But
it would do much more than that. Rep. Smith's bill would go far beyond current
law, seriously compromise women's access to reproductive health care, and
hamstring government operations." [RH
Reality Check, 1/20/11]

Smith's bill would do more than just write into law existing
abortion restrictions. It would also eliminate tax benefits for insurance
policies that cover abortion -- even abortions in most cases of medical
necessity.

NARAL's
Crane says the effect could be far-reaching.

"If
you are a health insurance plan and you are selling your product, and all of a
sudden it becomes that much more expensive because there are tax penalties
imposed on it, you're probably going to change the nature of your product, and in
this case we're quite certain that Chris Smith intends for health insurance
plans to drop their abortion coverage," Crane said. [NPR's Morning
Edition, 1/21/11, emphasis
added]

H.R. 3 Originally Sought
To Narrow Definition Of Rape To "Forcible Rape." From Mother Jones:

For
years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for
abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or
incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of
the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a
bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner
(R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision
that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape
and incest in these cases.

With
this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith
(R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to
"forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions
in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are
non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a
24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an
abortion. [Mother Jones, 1/28/11]

February 9: Rep.
Olson Introduced Bill To Increase Administrative Requirements For States That
Use Federal Money For Abortion Providers.
In February, Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) introduced H.R. 593, the Taxpayer
Conscience Protection Act, which "directs each state that makes a Medicaid
payment from federal funds during the fiscal year for any items or services furnished
by an abortion provider to: (1) report to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (HHS) on all such payments, and (2) publish the report on a public
Internet website of the state. It also requires an annual report to
specified congressional committees on such reports, which shall also be
published on a public Internet HHS website." [Rep. Pete Olson Press
Release, accessed 10/4/11]

A bill
that Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) introduced in January would provide federal
funds for the purchase of sonogram machines at organizations that counsel women
against having an abortion (the American Independent reported on this bill last
week). These crisis pregnancy outfits, sometimes called "pregnancy
resource centers," are often run by religious groups; many have been found
to provide women with false and misleading information to dissuade them from
having an abortion.

The
preamble of Stearns' bill makes it sound as though any nonprofit, tax-exempt
organization could apply to the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) for grants to purchase ultrasound equipment. But the bill comes with
stipulations. To be eligible for this grant, a facility would have to show
every woman seeking services the ultrasound image and describe to them the
"general anatomical and physiological description of the characteristics
of the fetus." The facility would be required to provide women with
"alternatives to abortion such as childbirth and adoption and information
concerning public and private agencies that will assist in those alternatives."
It also must offer its services free of charge. That last condition would
disqualify abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood, which charges on a
sliding scale based on a woman's income. [Mother Jones, 3/28/11, emphasis
added]

April 7: House GOP Threatened To Shut Down
The Government Over Funding For Planned Parenthood. As reported by the Huffington Post: "The United
States government is on the verge of shutting down over a dispute about
subsidized pap smears, according to sources familiar with the budget
negotiations. The White House and Senate Democrats have publicly capitulated to
ever-increasing Republican demands for spending cuts, but negotiations over the
budget for the remainder of the fiscal year have shifted their focus from money
to so-called riders -- provisions that restrict the federal government from
spending money on certain projects or entities. [...] At a late-night White
House meeting between the president and key congressional leaders, House
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) made clear that his conference would not approve
funding for the government if any money were allowed to flow to Planned
Parenthood through legislation known as Title X. 'This comes down to women's
health issues related to Title X,' a person in the meeting told HuffPost."
[Huffington Post, 4/7/11]

May: After Removing "Forcible
Rape" Language From H.R. 3, Republicans Used A "Sly Legislative
Maneuver" To Leave Open The Door To Statutory Rape Exclusions. According to Mother Jones:

[W]hile
they've amended their legislation, which faces a floor vote in the House on
Wednesday, Republicans haven't stopped trying to narrow the already small
exception under which federal funding for abortions is permissible. They've
used a sly legislative maneuver to make sure that even though the language of
the bill is different, the effect remains the same.

The backdoor
reintroduction of the statutory rape change relies on the use of a committee
report, a document that congressional committees produce outlining what they
intend a piece of legislation to do. If
there's ever a court fight about the interpretation of a law - and when it
comes to a subject as contentious as abortion rights, there almost always is -
judges will look to the committee report as evidence of congressional intent,
and use it to decide what the law actually means.

In
this case, the committee report for H.R. 3 says that the bill will "not
allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory
rape." The bill itself doesn't say
anything like that, but if a court decides that legislators intended to exclude
statutory rape-related abortions from eligibility for Medicaid funding, then
that will be the effect. [Mother Jones, 5/3/11, emphasis
added]

May 25: Rep. Foxx Amended A Bill Such That
It Would Prohibit Graduate Medical Education Funds From Going Towards Training
Doctors On How To Perform Abortions. According
to GOP.gov, in May Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) offered an amendment to the Public
Health Service Act that would "prohibit any funds made available under the
Act to be used to provide any abortion or training in the provision of
abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest, or in the case where a
woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness,
that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death
unless an abortion is performed including a life endangering physical condition
caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself." [GOP.gov, accessed
10/3/11, emphasis added]

June 17: House Passed Rep. King Amendment
Prohibiting Use Of Funds For RU-486, Including In Telemedicine Services. In June, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) added an amendment to the
Agriculture Appropriations bill that would prohibit funds in the bill to be
used for mifepristone, otherwise known as RU-486. According to the Iowa
Independent:

U.S. Rep.
Steve King (R-Kiron) successfully introduced an amendment to the Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of 2012, HR 2112, to prevent any appropriations made
possible by the bill to be used for mifepristone, for any purpose.

In
introducing his amendment, King made clear that the purpose was to prevent
Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from accessing a $15 million
line item contained in the bill for development of telemedicine services;
however, the language of the amendment is extremely broad. It states that
"none of the funds made available by this Act may be used for
mifepristone, commonly known as RU-486, for any purpose," which does not
specifically target the telemedicine line item, but applies to any and all
appropriations within the bill. [Iowa Independent, 6/17/11]

June 22: Rep. Ros-Lehtinen Introduced Bill To
Impose Harsher Parental Notification Laws Concerning Interstate Abortions. In June, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) introduced the
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which, according to The Hill,
"would require abortion providers in states without parental notification
requirements to notify parents about abortion procedures. The bill, H.R. 2299,
would also make it a federal offense to transport minors across state lines to
avoid a state's laws requiring parental notification of abortions." [The
Hill, 6/27/11]

July 21: GOP Included A Provision To
Ban Abortion Funds In Foreign Relations Authorization Bill. The House Foreign Affairs Committee supported a provision
in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act that prohibits any international
organization that promotes or performs abortions from receiving U.S. aid. From
the Associated Press: "The panel backed a provision banning U.S. taxpayer
money, usually Agency for International Development funds, from going to
international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide
abortion information, counseling or referrals. Exceptions are for rape, incest
or if the life of the mother is in danger." [Associated Press, 7/21/11]

October 6: Rep.
Bachmann Introduced Bill To Require Abortion Providers Make The Fetus'
Heartbeat Audible And Visible To Women Seeking An Abortion. In October, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) introduced the
Heartbeat Informed Consent Act, which "would require that abortion
providers make the unborn child's heartbeat visible through ultrasound,
describe the cardiac activity, and make the baby's heartbeat audible, if the
child is old enough for it to be detectable." [Bachmann.House.gov, 10/6/11]

October 13: The House Passed The
"Protect Life Act." According to
CNN:

The U.S. House passed a bill Thursday that
would amend the health care law to bar federal funding for health plans that
provide abortion services.

The vote was 251 in favor and 170 against.

The bill, the Protect Life Act, was sponsored by Pennsylvania
Republican Joe Pitts and gathered overwhelming Republican support. Only two
Republicans voted against it, along with all but 15 Democrats. [CNN, 10/13/11]

"Protect
Life Act" Could Allow Hospitals To Refuse Abortions To Women, Even In Cases Of
Emergency. According to Talking Points Memo:

A bit of backstory: currently,
all hospitals in America that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding are bound by
a 1986 law known as EMTALA to provide emergency care to all comers, regardless
of their ability to pay or other factors. Hospitals do not have to provide
free care to everyone that arrives at their doorstep under EMTALA - but they do
have to stabilize them and provide them with emergency care without factoring
in their ability to pay for it or not. If a hospital can't provide the care a
patient needs, it is required to transfer that patient to a hospital that can,
and the receiving hospital is required to accept that patient.

In the case of an anti-abortion hospital with a patient
requiring an emergency abortion, ETMALA would require that hospital to perform
it or transfer the patient to someone who can. (The nature of how that
procedure works exactly is up in the air, with the ACLU calling on the federal
government to state clearly that unwillingness to perform an abortion doesn't
qualify as inability under EMTALA. That argument is ongoing, and the government
has yet to weigh in.)

Pitts' new bill would free hospitals from any abortion
requirement under EMTALA, meaning that medical providers who aren't willing to
terminate pregnancies wouldn't have to - nor would they have to facilitate a
transfer.

2011: Politicizing The Debt Limit Fight

In The Summer Of 2011, Prominent
Economists Warned That A Failure To Raise The Debt Limit Could Have "Grave
Long-Term Consequences." In June, a
letter signed by some of the county's top economists, including six Nobel
Laureates and five former presidents of the American Economic Association,
warned Congress that not raising the debt limit would translate into higher
prices for U.S. businesses and consumers:

The U.S.
economy looks fragile at present. Economic growth has been too weak to generate
sufficient new job creation. Reaching the limit on total outstanding debt could
force a dramatic and sudden cut in federal spending that would destroy jobs and
threaten the recovery. To remove spending from the economy at such a pivotal
moment would be irresponsible.

Failure to
increase the debt limit sufficiently to accommodate existing U.S. laws and
obligations also could undermine trust in the full faith and credit of the
United States government, with potentially grave long-term consequences. This
loss of trust could translate into higher interest rates not only for the
federal government, but also for U.S. businesses and consumers, causing all to
pay higher prices for credit. Economic growth and jobs would suffer as a
result. [Economic Policy Institute, 6/29/11, emphasis
added]

Here, we are
looking at Obama's claim that, "President Reagan did it 18 times. George
W. Bush did it seven times."

We'll go straight
to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which keeps tabs on when
the debt ceiling has been raised.

Among its
historical tables is one labeled "Statutory Limits on Federal debt 1940 -
Current" (Table 7.3) The
table lists 106 increases to the federal debt limit since 1940.

More
specifically, it lists 18 increases to the debt ceiling between February 1981
and September 1987. In other words, there were 18 under President Ronald
Reagan, as Obama said. And there were seven increases between January 2001 and
January 2009 -- during George W. Bush's presidency. We should also note that it
has been raised three times already under President Obama, on Feb. 17, 2009,
Dec. 28, 2009 and Feb. 12, 2010. [PolitiFact, 7/25/11]

May 9: Speaker John Boehner Vowed
Not To Increase The Debt Limit "Without Significant Spending Cuts." In an address to the Economic Club of New York, House
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said: "Without significant spending cuts and
changes to the way we spend the American people's money, there will be no debt
limit increase." [Speaker.gov, 5/9/11]

Late June: Republicans Walked Out Of
Negotiations On Raising The Debt Ceiling After Democrats Requested One Dollar
In Tax Increases For Every Five Dollars Of Spending Cuts. From the Wall Street Journal: "A bipartisan
group of lawmakers led by Vice President Joseph Biden had agreed on cuts that
total about $1 trillion over 10 years, participants say. They were shooting
for about $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, but when Democrats insisted about
$400 billion in tax increases be considered, the Republicans walked out."
[Wall Street Journal, 6/28/11, emphasis
added]

Just Two Weeks From The Deadline,
Speaker Boehner Held A Vote On Debt Limit Bill With "No Signs Of Compromise,"
Despite Promise Of Veto. From
Politico:

House Speaker John
Boehner confirmed a POLITICO
report that
he had met again privately with President Barack Obama at the White House on
Sunday to try to get debt talks back on track. But ignoring Obama's veto
warning, Boehner will press ahead Tuesday with House votes on a revised debt
ceiling bill that shows no sign of compromise on the spending and tax policy
differences behind the crisis.

Indeed, with the Aug. 2 deadline
exactly two weeks away, the House GOP is doubling down its bet with 10-year
statutory spending caps intended to wring $5.8 trillion in unspecified savings
from the government during the next decade - more than twice the $2.4 trillion
debt ceiling increase that is allowed. And in his haste to act, Boehner will
bring the so-called Cut, Cap and Balance bill to the floor under exactly the
type of procedure he has said he abhors: limited debate and with no real review
by any legislative committee. [Politico,
7/18/11]

In Late July, House Majority Leader
Eric Cantor Was Still Refusing To Consider A Debt Limit Increase That Included
Tax Increases Or Didn't Include Spending Cuts. According to a press release by House Majority Leader Eric
Cantor (R-VA):

House
Republicans are working in good faith to find a middle ground to prevent
default and meet the President's request for a debt limit increase in a manner
that achieves serious spending cuts and puts in place binding reforms to
address our debt crisis and get our economy back on track. We have worked for
months to back the President and Congressional Democrats away from their demand
for a blank check to keep spending. We have fought to ensure that any increase
is accompanied by equal spending cuts and reforms that change the way
Washington works - and, most importantly, we will not raise taxes in this tough
economy. [...]

The two-step
framework that the Speaker and I laid out to our members today is not perfect -
as we've said for months, we would have much preferred to vote to increase the
debt limit only once, but the President and his party continued to make demands
which we cannot meet - namely tax increases. In this new framework, we will
achieve spending cuts that exceed the amount of the debt limit increase, cap
spending for the next ten years and offer a path to achieve serious reforms
through a bipartisan, bicameral commission. Our plan will responsibly prevent
default and meet the President's full request for a debt limit increase over
time. The President's reason for opposing this common sense plan is to avoid an
election year fight on spending and taxes. Though he has warned Congress not to
call his bluff, I remain hopeful that he and his party will work with us to
move forward on this common sense plan and won't leave the strength of the
economy and millions of American jobs hanging in the balance for election year
political posturing. [Rep. Eric Cantor Press Release, 7/25/11]

August 2: President Obama Signed A
Debt-Limit Compromise. From CBS News:

President Obama signed a hard-fought,
last-minute compromise bill to avert economic catastrophe Tuesday, saying the
deal to cut spending and increase the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit marked
an "important first step to ensuring that as a nation we live within our
means."

The bill, he said, was the outcome of a
"long and contentious debate" to avoid a man-made economic disaster
that he described as creating "unsettling" economic uncertainty. He
said that while voters chose divided government, "they sure didn't vote
for dysfunctional government."

"It shouldn't take the risk of default, the risk of
economic catastrophe, to get folks in this town to get together and do their
jobs," the president said. He added: "Our economy didn't need
Washington to come along with a manufactured crisis to make things worse."
[CBS News, 8/2/11]

August 5: Standard & Poor's
Downgraded U.S. Credit Rating For The First Time In History, Citing Republican
Actions And Rhetoric About Defaulting On The Debt. From Talking Points Memo:

Standard
& Poors has a specific justification for downgrading the U.S. bond rating,
and it's deadly for Republicans. It wasn't just that Congress showed itself to
be reckless and dysfunctional, or that the GOP shows no sign of ever ending
their anti-tax jihad. It's that for a period of weeks, some lawmakers (read:
Republicans) were quite literally shrugging off the risks of blowing past the
August 2 deadline, running out of borrowing authority, and missing payment
obligations.

"[P]eople
in the political arena were even talking about a potential
default," said Joydeep Mukherji, senior director at S&P.
"That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something
notable," he added. "This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA
sovereigns." [...]

House
Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) warned against default, but for a time was
willing to go past August 2.

"The
markets are not fooled by some date imposed to say that that is the trigger for
the collapse," he said at a Virginia jobs forum in May. "I think
the markets are looking to see that there is real reform." [...]

When
Speaker John Boehner acknowledged that missing the August 2 deadline would put
the country in "an awful lot of jeopardy, Rep. Louie Gohmert reacted
by saying, "[t]he problem with the Speaker, and him saying that, is he
believes the President. And I would encourage the Speaker not to believe the
President anymore when the President says things like that." [...]

This
extended beyond the halls of Congress, too. Taking their cues from the right,
GOP Presidential candidates stood opposed to raising the debt limit. In
response to a question from TPM, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty said he
wasn't sure a temporary U.S. default would have calamitous consequences.
"Maybe not. We don't know," he said.

Nebraska
GOP Senate candidate Jon Bruning, who, if he wins, will be faced with a debt
limit vote in early 2013 said, "[Default] may be something that has to
happen to make the fundamental changes that are necessary in the American
governmental system. We have to shrink it. And, if the Democratic Party that
controls the White House and the Senate doesn't understand it, default may be
necessary." [Talking Points Memo, 8/12/11]

ClickHEREto read about how House Republicans have spent
2011 cutting jobs.